Search

Objective: This study utilized the evidence-gap map method and critically examined the scope, methodologies, and focus of the studies that investigated the influence of the built environment on inpatient healthcare settings over a decade (2010-2021)., Methods: We conducted a systematic review per the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and surveyed 406 articles, primarily from North America and Europe., Results: Our findings revealed a dominant focus on architectural features (73%), such as room design and ward layout. Comparatively, there was less emphasis on interior-, ambient-, social-, and nature-related features. Most previous studies explored multiple environmental features, which indicated the intricacy of this field. Research outcomes were diverse, with person-centered care (PCC) being the most frequently investigated, followed by safe care, emotional well-being, activity, and behavior. Furthermore, research methods varied considerably based on the study's outcomes and features. Clinical outcomes and safe care favored quantitative methods, activity and behavior favored mixed methods, and PCC favored qualitative research., Conclusion: This review provides an in-depth overview of the existing studies on healthcare design research and sheds light on the current trends and methodological choices. The insights garnered can guide future research, policy-making, and the development of healthcare facilities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Although this disease has primarily impacted general medicine intensive care units, other areas of healthcare including psychiatry were modified in response to corona measures to decrease the transmission of the disease. Reflecting on the modifications to the environment provides an opportunity to design psychiatric environments for future pandemics or other demands for healthcare., Background: The therapeutic environment of psychiatric wards was modified in Friesland, the Netherlands, in response to COVID-19. During this time, an interdisciplinary team met consistently to contribute to the preliminary design of a new psychiatric hospital., Methods: During the first 18 months of the pandemic, clinical reflections were made to describe the impact of COVID-19 on the psychiatric care environment. Architects have created a preliminary design of a new psychiatric hospital based on these reflections, monthly collaborative design discussions based on virtual mock-ups and evidence-based design based on theoretical concepts and research., Results and Conclusions: This theoretical and reflective study describes how an inpatient psychiatric environment was restructured to manage infection during COVID-19. The therapeutic environment of the psychiatric ward and patient care changed drastically during COVID-19. The number of patients accessing care decreased, patient autonomy was restricted, and the function of designated behavioral support spaces changed to manage the risk of infection. However, these challenging times have provided an opportunity to reflect on theories and consider the design of new hospital environments that can be adapted in response to future pandemics or be restructured for different care functions.

Objectives: The purpose of this scoping review is to identify evidence on how characteristics of healing architecture in clinical contexts impact clinical practice and patient experiences. Based on these insights, we advance a more practice-based approach to the study of how healing architectures work., Background: The notion of "healing architecture" has recently emerged in discussions of the spatial organization of healthcare settings, particularly in the Nordic countries. This scoping review summarizes findings from seven articles which specifically describe how patients and staff experience characteristics of healing architecture., Methods: This scoping review was conducted using the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We referred to the decision tool developed by Pollock et al. to confirm that this approach was the most appropriate evidence synthesis type to identify characteristics related to healing architecture and practice. To ensure the rigor of this review, we referred to the methodological guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews., Results: There are two main findings of the review. First, there is no common or operative definition of healing architecture used in the selected articles. Secondly, there is limited knowledge of how healing architecture shapes clinical and patient outcomes., Conclusions: We conclude that further research is needed into how healing architectures make a difference in everyday clinical practices, both to better inform the development of evidence-based designs in the future and to further elaborate criteria to guide postoccupancy evaluations of purpose-built sites.